I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
That argument would be stronger if annuities were always the prudent option, but they're not. They are a value trap locking the pensioner into a risk of long-term destitution because of inflation. Remember that 95% of annuities are at fixed rates (i.e. not index-linked or with an automatic annual increment); that is because inflation-linked annuities are unaffordable, and generally extremely poor value.
In addition, there are all sorts of individual circumstances where annuities don't make sense.
Yes and No.... they also reflect that younger retired are more active and need more income in their earlier years than the later ones where they are more sedantry and less active. You are right ideally RPI linked would be great BUT level annuities do often fit people's income needs through their retirement.
I view fixed term annuities as getting a boost from these changes and that's another reason for my punt as one of the 2 hit so badly is a big player in that market too.
This is where markets are a very good thing, as long as you do make sure you have the right advice. With more options available there will be solutions out there, but people will need advisors to help them to find the right ones. If I recall correctly, Osborne stated yesterday that everyone will be legally entitled to such advice - three meetings, was it?
As you know, I am not a Tory but I really find it hard to find fault with the savings and pensions stuff set out yesterday - maybe because it was actually developed by an LD!! But what I am less certain of is how it will resonate beyond the very positive headlines it is generating now, which may well turn into a nice Tory poll bounce. This is not something people will see in their wage packets next month or even next year. It is something to be planned for and so may pretty swiftly become a detail - especially if, as I expect, all parties accept this without much singing and dancing. We shall see.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), there's a legitimate view that (even if it's only in the immediate term) people aren't well-informed enough in this area, but that line will not go down well.
My opinion on this is simple. It's their money, they can do what they like with it. That includes wasting it on cruises and Audi's if they want to.
However, given that most people which off their own backs have paid into a pension are saving, I think they will all too aware of the need to use that money wisely.
Besides which, who after working for 40+ years doesn't deserve a little fun. The state pension is still there for a safety net after all, and people who spend their pension will just have to cut their cloth, as all pensions do already.
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
As opposed to the Labour concept of the state knows best how you should spend your pension pot.
It's not the states money to determine on. Just as a salary or other savings are not for the nanny state to regulate.
The other point on annuities is of course that politcial interference from the EU has made it illegal for annuity providers to use objective mortality data by sex. That was a piece of unbridled lunacy which defrauds male retirees.
Hence those providers offering better rates for enhanced/impaired life annuities where individual underwriting applies are again in a better position... can you see my blinkers on this???
(which actually censors even modest unionist comments - I know, I had a go once).
You mean they weren't fine with death threats or maliciously revealing a posters family details? Good thing PB is far more 'forgiving' to a right-winger such as yourself.
ROFL
It's always funny to see how worked up you get in the defence of 'Wings over Scouseland'.
Hence those providers offering better rates for enhanced/impaired life annuities where individual underwriting applies are again in a better position... can you see my blinkers on this???
I think you are right, the market seems to have over-reacted. I also think it has over-reacted on the mainstream providers like Legal & General.
However, markets can continue to over-react for some time, so it's very hard to time an investment in this situation.
Mr. Nabavi, indeed, the EU's idiocy was very harmful to men, but also to women. A lot of women rely on their husbands in retirement*, and the unfairly lower male annuity rates means the women they support also get less.
*Scottish Widows had a report about this a few months ago. The rate was higher than expected, with around 40% or so of women basically planning to rely on their husbands in retirement.
Do we know how many people currently make use of the lump sum (which is under a generous tax regime, I think)?
I believe most people do (Scrapheap will be able to confirm if I'm right), but of course they are not necessarily spending the tax-free sum on bingo and cruises: they may invest it in ISAs or property, or use it to pay off debt.
Nearly everyone takes the max tax free cash. It's often a scary thing moving from working to retiring and knowing what you've saved is all you can rely on to see you through the rest of your days - plus the state pension. A chunk of money in the bank for lump sum expenditure (in Cash ISAs, NS&I savings certs etc) is a reassuring buffer and then compliments the annuity whic is providing the reassurance of an income for life as long as someone is breathing, I'm keen on 100% spouse option as it means the retiree knows that for long as one of them is still alive, that income is coming in every month.
I still see a role for annuities as part of a retirement portfolio albeit the increased state pension will perhaps reduce lifetime annuities but see a lot more fixed term annuities - all to be seen really.
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
That argument would be stronger if annuities were always the prudent option, but they're not. They are a value trap locking the pensioner into a risk of long-term destitution because of inflation. Remember that 95% of annuities are at fixed rates (i.e. not index-linked or with an automatic annual increment); that is because inflation-linked annuities are unaffordable, and generally extremely poor value.
In addition, there are all sorts of individual circumstances where annuities don't make sense.
Yes and No.... they also reflect that younger retired are more active and need more income in their earlier years than the later ones where they are more sedantry and less active. You are right ideally RPI linked would be great BUT level annuities do often fit people's income needs through their retirement.
I view fixed term annuities as getting a boost from these changes and that's another reason for my punt as one of the 2 hit so badly is a big player in that market too.
As you know, I am not a Tory but I really find it hard to find fault with the savings and pensions stuff set out yesterday - maybe because it was actually developed by an LD!! But what I am less certain of is how it will resonate beyond the very positive headlines it is generating now, which may well turn into a nice Tory poll bounce.
The removal of the requirement to buy an annuity was actually in the Tory 2010 manifesto, although with Steve Webb's development it truly is a Coalition proposal.
I'd agree with you that I wouldn't expect it to have much affect on voting intention as it is removed from people's daily lives - on the other hand the IHT proposal by Osborne in 2007 also related to something that was far off for most people and that did have a significant effect.
One issue which I haven't seen addressed is what happens to the unclaimed pension pots when you die. Do they vanish, or form part of your estate? Annunities vanish of course.
Death benefits have always been a feature of DC pensions. If untouched these are most IHT friendly (pre 75 at least) and then get less so - under drawdown there is currently a 55% tax on the lump sum if taken as such - but that % is also under review now, previously a widow would be advised not to take the lump sum but use the money for their own annuity and/or drawdown - annuities are 'for life' so that's the deal, you pass your longevity risk to the insurer but if your spouse is on there, or there is a min. years guarantee then the income continues even after you the annuitant has died.
That's true, but usually those things (like min years guarantees or passing the annunity on) are factored in to the value of the yield (making the pay out even less).
Without an annunity, the pension is just a big pot of money, and if you can draw that money out (subject to tax), then it would be logical that pot can be passed on in full someway.
(which actually censors even modest unionist comments - I know, I had a go once).
You mean they weren't fine with death threats or maliciously revealing a posters family details? Good thing PB is far more 'forgiving' to a right-winger such as yourself.
ROFL
It's always funny to see how worked up you get in the defence of 'Wings over Scouseland'.
(which actually censors even modest unionist comments - I know, I had a go once).
You mean they weren't fine with death threats or maliciously revealing a posters family details? Good thing PB is far more 'forgiving' to a right-winger such as yourself.
ROFL
It's always funny to see how worked up you get in the defence of 'Wings over Scouseland'.
Chortle.
I doubt you have the correct blog for a start but as you surely know we can't mention certain scottish blogs on PB because, you know, reasons...?
Pension campaigners have welcomed Mr Osborne’s “savings revolution”, saying that it would finally stop people being forced to buy poor-value annuities that condemned them to receiving low annual incomes.
However, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, warned that pensioners could end up making the “wrong choices” because of Mr Osborne’s reforms.
“There is a reason why there’s been an expectation you would buy an annuity in our country if you’ve saved tax advantage in a pension – that’s been there for 80 or 90 years,” Mr Balls told the BBC.
“The question will be - will there be proper protections and proper financial education so people don’t make the wrong choices and end up running out of their pension pot well before their retirement ends.
The motherlode indeed. Or in Ed Balls' case the motherf%$#erlode.
If you substitute 'death' for 'retirement ends' (which is the same thing ) In Ed Balls comments then I would think most people would wish they have spent their pension pot before they die ,especially as an annuity will not pay to their estate after death.
Labour need to get out of the public sector and look at how worried about annuity rates many ordinary workers in the private sector are. For the sake of pension certainty they could negate any tory advantage by totally agreeing with the change (this would help people pay into pensions with certainty and therefore boost pension saving) rather than playing politics because they somehow see the private sector as a load of bankers
Yup. This pension move in the budget has reopened the whole issue about the right relationship between the individual and the state. Labour are badly on the wrong side of that argument. They're lefties. They love the state. They want Big Brother to be in charge of everything. They think individuals are units to be controlled for the greater good. Really - 'people can't be trusted to spend their own money'? FFS!
SeanT is dead right that this is a theme the Tories and LIBERAL Democrats should be get their teeth into in a big way and hang in there like pitbulls. The coalition parties treat people like people - free agents. Labour simply don't. They need to be called out on it. Brutally. Publically. Relentlessly.
The other point on annuities is of course that politcial interference from the EU has made it illegal for annuity providers to use objective mortality data by sex. That was a piece of unbridled lunacy which defrauds male retirees.
Indeed it does. Blatant discrimination. We die earlier so should get better annuities. Simples.
Still think this liberalisation is a very good thing even in the cold light of day. Yes there are issues surrounding tax avoidance and the possibility of making poor choices, as Ed Balls reasonably has raised, but the overall thrust is spot on.
It's our money, we've earned it and been prudent enough to save it. I do not like being told by the Nanny State I'm not allowed in the sweet shop as I might eat too much and get sick.
Labour's instinct on this seems to be:-
a) Not to trust people with the fruits of their own prudence and good sense. b) Isn't all a bit suspicious and sordid that they've salted a few quid away?
The way we finance old age in this country has been butchered utterly over the years from all sides - though G Brown deserves a special mention in the rogue's gallery on this one, with his disincentives. This has opened up a proper debate on incentivising people (at last) to do the right thing during a working life, and trusting them with their own cash. There are pitfalls to Osborne's approach sure, but it's a great deal better than the rubbish we've had for years on this.
I absolutely agree that it's not our business how pensioners spend their money. But aren't you a bit concerned about people spending large pension pots AND then claiming lots of benefits - housing benefit being the obvious one? Because that's what the annuity system which we're now undermining was designed to prevent. It was quite a Tory concept, IMO.
That argument would be stronger if annuities were always the prudent option, but they're not. They are a value trap locking the pensioner into a risk of long-term destitution because of inflation. Remember that 95% of annuities are at fixed rates (i.e. not index-linked or with an automatic annual increment); that is because inflation-linked annuities are unaffordable, and generally extremely poor value.
In addition, there are all sorts of individual circumstances where annuities don't make sense.
Yes and No.... they also reflect that younger retired are more active and need more income in their earlier years than the later ones where they are more sedantry and less active. You are right ideally RPI linked would be great BUT level annuities do often fit people's income needs through their retirement.
I view fixed term annuities as getting a boost from these changes and that's another reason for my punt as one of the 2 hit so badly is a big player in that market too.
As you know, I am not a Tory but I really find it hard to find fault with the savings and pensions stuff set out yesterday - maybe because it was actually developed by an LD!! But what I am less certain of is how it will resonate beyond the very positive headlines it is generating now, which may well turn into a nice Tory poll bounce.
The removal of the requirement to buy an annuity was actually in the Tory 2010 manifesto, although with Steve Webb's development it truly is a Coalition proposal.
I'd agree with you that I wouldn't expect it to have much affect on voting intention as it is removed from people's daily lives - on the other hand the IHT proposal by Osborne in 2007 also related to something that was far off for most people and that did have a significant effect.
I am inclined to believe that became a bigger issue than it might have done because of the specific timing - ie, was Brown going to call a GE or not? It was very soon forgotten and then pretty much dropped by the Tories. The real narrative changer was the crash.
They're lefties. They love the state. They want Big Brother to be in charge of everything. They think individuals are units to be controlled for the greater good.
This is where markets are a very good thing, as long as you do make sure you have the right advice. With more options available there will be solutions out there, but people will need advisors to help them to find the right ones. If I recall correctly, Osborne stated yesterday that everyone will be legally entitled to such advice - three meetings, was it?
Yes - interesting that - 'free' advice is what he wants to guarantee for everyone in a DC scheme coming up to retirement..... funnily enough I'm v interested to see who will provide this - is HMRC going to pay me?
Anyway broader issue is who might be on the hook if a client who is advised to not get some annuity income but draw it all down then runs out of money??? Might a complaint be made about the advice.... so what might the prudent adviser suggest ensuring to the client?
Not least with our regulator, PI insurers etc all so negative on drawdown because of the investment risks - or will that change too...
I think the pensions liberalisation is a fantastic idea by the Chancellor. Credit where it is due. Whether it turns into a long-term poll uplift I do not know but it's a non-partisan move that will help many.
On the other hand, I would be furious with Grant Shapps if I were a Tory supporter – the guy is clearly a liability. Someone needs to get a grip on him and fast, with the M. Green stuff and this bingo ad, I truly despair.
Clegg dismisses Conservatives' "silly" bingo and beer poster following #Budget2014 http://l-bc.co/cOfC7J #CallClegg
In fairness the poster did look a bit like a spoof but I would imagine that beer drinkers and bingo players will exchange a bit of patronisation for a cheaper night out. The poster will do no harm if circulated by lefty types as it highlights genuine tax cuts for ordinary peoples' leisure.
.The poster will do no harm if circulated by lefty types as it highlights genuine tax cuts for ordinary peoples leisure.
Of course. It's obviously a triumph for Osbrowne and Cammie and not hilarious at all. You know, like the omnishambles was on here with so many amusing PB tories who couldn't spot an out of touch twerp if it started shouting in Gove's face. Like the incompetent fop did only a few days ago.
Cammie's internet snooping clearly wasn't Big Brother obviously. BTW whatever happened with that? All going well I trust?
Mick I'm 1/2 with you on Dave. Osborne is clearly a believer in free markets and free individuals. Dave only is when it suits him - he has that nannying paternalist streak in him. I'd be very happy to see Osborne as PM.
They're lefties. They love the state. They want Big Brother to be in charge of everything. They think individuals are units to be controlled for the greater good.
Mr. W, just saw that myself. Reminded me of a very similar story, except that in that case (in Ireland, I think) the cashpoint was more or less empty. The amount of money the thieves stole meant that they had, effectively, been 'working' for less than the minimum wage.
If ever there was a statement of the bleeding obvious this has to be it:
Police said they were looking for "people acting suspiciously on Friday night, possibly covered in soil".
Acting 'suspiciously ' on a Friday night in Manchester is NOT shouting at the top of your voice, starting fights and being covered (if not in soil) in vomit
Cammie's internet snooping clearly wasn't Big Brother obviously. BTW whatever happened with that? All going well I trust?
Mick I'm 1/2 with you on Dave. Osborne is clearly a believer in free markets and free individuals. Dave only is when it suits him - he has that nannying paternalist streak in him. I'd be very happy to see Osborne as PM.
Precisely who do you think it is who comes up with all these 'master strategies'? I'm afraid you're fooling yourself if you think Cammie does all that much in the chumocracy other than PR photoshoots, big events in parliament, foreign visits, hosting and liasing with Clegg and the lib dems etc. Osbrowne's the one behind almost all of the strategy and it's the very thing that would cripple any Osbrowne leadership bid. Tory MPs know perfectly well any Osbrowne candidacy would be a vote for a 'continuity Cameron' tory leadership.
They're lefties. They love the state. They want Big Brother to be in charge of everything. They think individuals are units to be controlled for the greater good.
This is where markets are a very good thing, as long as you do make sure you have the right advice. With more options available there will be solutions out there, but people will need advisors to help them to find the right ones. If I recall correctly, Osborne stated yesterday that everyone will be legally entitled to such advice - three meetings, was it?
Yes - interesting that - 'free' advice is what he wants to guarantee for everyone in a DC scheme coming up to retirement..... funnily enough I'm v interested to see who will provide this - is HMRC going to pay me?
Anyway broader issue is who might be on the hook if a client who is advised to not get some annuity income but draw it all down then runs out of money??? Might a complaint be made about the advice.... so what might the prudent adviser suggest ensuring to the client?
Not least with our regulator, PI insurers etc all so negative on drawdown because of the investment risks - or will that change too...
My guess is that the obligation to provide the 3 meetings will be imposed on the pension provider. This will raise some interesting issues. Either they will be able to sell products during these meetings (in which case they would pay to be allowed to take part in them but their advice might be very far from impartial) or they will not in which case the management costs of the pension administration will increase. I suspect the former which will no doubt prove problematic at some point.
I was involved in a case for an IFA who dealt with very high value clients a few years ago. He just assumed that the main reason to use pensions was avoidance of IHT. The idea of having to buy an annuity at 75 (as it was at the time) was the only fly in the ointment in this plan but there were annuities which paid the unspent portion to the widow or whoever on death. No doubt these annuities would have offered even worse returns but since the purpose was tax avoidance it was thought to be worth it.
@Topping - "If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised."
Any chance of some examples of this or are you just projecting what you want to be true?
We had this last night. There is a strong narrative that to be rich is somehow to warrant penal measures. As I said, "if Lab thinking on here is representative..." You only have to look at any of @RochdalePioneers or @BobaFett's posts where they talk about "the rich" plus not to mention the Pollys, Seaumus's, George's views of the world.
And pretty much like the "wrong sort of recovery" or that of economic ineptitude, it is all about the narrative. If a narrative develops around Lab that they penalise the rich and don't trust people with their own money then that will be a powerful element of the Cons campaign.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
@Topping - "If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised."
Any chance of some examples of this or are you just projecting what you want to be true?
We had this last night. There is a strong narrative that to be rich is somehow to warrant penal measures. As I said, "if Lab thinking on here is representative..." You only have to look at any of @RochdalePioneers or @BobaFett's posts where they talk about "the rich" plus not to mention the Pollys, Seaumus's, George's views of the world.
Show me a SINGLE post where I have done that? Oh, you can't.
Because I don't. According to many PB Conservatives I am rich!
Please don't cite me as a source without any evidence again.
I think the pension changes are broadly a good idea. They provide a lot more flexibility, which should help to make the transition from working to retirement simpler to manage in a gradual way, if one wants to reduce working hours and supplement your income from pension savings. This is particularly important given the ageing of the population.
It also accords with my general political philosophy, of providing people with as much freedom to live their life as they choose, while standing together as a society to look after those who make mistakes with this freedom.
And someone who is prudent and careful with their money will have more left over to pass on to their children and other beneficiaries when they die, which is not the case with an annuity.
The main uncertainty I have is to what extent society will be willing to stand together to look after those who make mistakes with the new freedom. Given the way in which the tabloids put the boot in to those who are without work I fear that a less forgiving mood could develop towards those pensioners who spend their savings in a rapid and extravagant manner.
The only other quibble I would have is that the vast majority of people are never going to have enough in their pension pots for the new rules to make much difference to them. There are those in work who have no spare money to put away in pension savings, but inequality and low pay are not the sorts of topics Tory Chancellors like to talk about.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
Are you really 46 Sean ?!?
My word it seems only yesterday you were a thrusting young Conservative PBer of some repute, barely wet under the ears on this illustrious forum.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
They're lefties. They love the state. They want Big Brother to be in charge of everything. They think individuals are units to be controlled for the greater good.
Cammie's internet snooping clearly wasn't Big Brother obviously. BTW whatever happened with that? All going well I trust?
Most of the problems with the filter have been fixed
Most?? That's quite some spin unless you've been living under a rock when the news broke. I suggest you do a touch more research.
In terms of whether the filters do what they are supposed to do, yes. Obviously if you oppose them in principle then practical fixes won't solves those problems.
Recent opposition has resorted to trotting out lines about how it's "easily avoided" - which it is, with a bit of know-how - but in the real world the vast majority of Internet users couldn't tie their shoelaces when it comes to understanding how their web content is delivered to them. In terms of sites that shouldn't have been blocked, sure enough, they've been fixed. The step from beta to global roll-out was always going to put pressure on that element.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
Being a local Sean, have you ever worked out why they misspell Edinburgh? Great pub though, especially in the summer.
Just the usual sarcasm, they look down on Edinburgh as being provincial , but in reality it is their old inferiority complex as they know their dump cannot compete with Edinburgh.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
Balls is roughly right on this, but it doesn't work on an industrial scale. It's basically a medium-term deferral arb: relieve pension contributions when you're paying 45%, and then drip the money out at a mixture of 20% and 40% in annual withdrawal chunks. The optimum usage would be in the situation where you can divert income to a non-earning spouse who currently has no pension - they could shelter a large proportion of the income from tax by contributing it to a pension, then for the next few years, withdraw £40k/year taxed at a marginal rate of about 15%. Over 10 years, you could effectively achieve that 15% rate on £2-300k, I think, though I've not sketched it out properly yet.
Doesn't work so well for someone who already has a large pension, because they'd expect to continue to have a fairly high base income after retirement age, so bulk pension withdrawals would be taxed at 40% - no real advantage there.
I'm sure someone has thought the details through more than I have, but there are definitely some nice opportunities.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
Balls the millstone, is getting desperate.
Yes but is this his stopped clock moment? I mean it has to happen sometime.
@Topping - "If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised."
Any chance of some examples of this or are you just projecting what you want to be true?
We had this last night. There is a strong narrative that to be rich is somehow to warrant penal measures. As I said, "if Lab thinking on here is representative..." You only have to look at any of @RochdalePioneers or @BobaFett's posts where they talk about "the rich" plus not to mention the Pollys, Seaumus's, George's views of the world.
Show me a SINGLE post where I have done that? Oh, you can't.
Because I don't. According to many PB Conservatives I am rich!
Please don't cite me as a source without any evidence again.
Thanks.
Apologies you are right - I went over your recent posts and realise that you didn't talk about the rich. Or indeed anything else of consequence for that matter apart from a bit of meta-posting. I conflated you with @RochdalePioneers who puts up an eloquent case for the other side.
I therefore look forward to a substantive post of yours when I will be sure to cite you accurately.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
David, as long as you put it in a cash fund , you should at least get your 40% gain back , assuming the meager interest covers inflation over the spell.
@Topping - "If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised."
Any chance of some examples of this or are you just projecting what you want to be true?
We had this last night. There is a strong narrative that to be rich is somehow to warrant penal measures. As I said, "if Lab thinking on here is representative..." You only have to look at any of @RochdalePioneers or @BobaFett's posts where they talk about "the rich" plus not to mention the Pollys, Seaumus's, George's views of the world.
Show me a SINGLE post where I have done that? Oh, you can't.
Because I don't. According to many PB Conservatives I am rich!
Please don't cite me as a source without any evidence again.
Thanks.
Apologies you are right - I went over your recent posts and realise that you didn't talk about the rich. Or indeed anything else of consequence for that matter apart from a bit of meta-posting. I conflated you with @RochdalePioneers who puts up an eloquent case for the other side.
I therefore look forward to a substantive post of yours when I will be sure to cite you accurately.
Thanks for the reply – and apology accepted. More than happy to debate stuff I HAVE said with you @Topping
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
Since my pension advisors over the last 15 years have never quite beat under the mattress in terms of rate of return there is a good chance that people like me might never use all of their potential tax free lump sum allowance. A quick in and out of current income might well achieve that.
I need to do more research.
Can I just say while replying I was greatly moved and impressed by your posts yesterday. I have had close dealings with such problems with members of my immediate family and it is terrible.
Being a local Sean, have you ever worked out why they misspell Edinburgh? Great pub though, especially in the summer.
Just the usual sarcasm, they look down on Edinburgh as being provincial , but in reality it is their old inferiority complex as they know their dump cannot compete with Edinburgh.
I love these posts from you @Malcolmmg - unfailingly brusque!
Being a local Sean, have you ever worked out why they misspell Edinburgh? Great pub though, especially in the summer.
Just the usual sarcasm, they look down on Edinburgh as being provincial , but in reality it is their old inferiority complex as they know their dump cannot compete with Edinburgh.
That's right Malcolm, they even had it in for the Jocks when the pub was built in the 19th century.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
Wouldn't you have to pay the marginal income tax rate upon withdrawal? Presumably the trick would be that, when you take it out, you are earning less so may be able to pay, say, the basic rate rather than the higher rate?
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
But you could avoid the 40/45% now and pay your your "lower" marginal rate later !
Being a local Sean, have you ever worked out why they misspell Edinburgh? Great pub though, especially in the summer.
Just the usual sarcasm, they look down on Edinburgh as being provincial , but in reality it is their old inferiority complex as they know their dump cannot compete with Edinburgh.
I love these posts from you @Malcolmmg - unfailingly brusque!
Malc's unfailing hatred of London and Lndoners gets a bit boring after a while.
His attitude is sad: so many people here on PB express a love of Edinburgh - it was the only thing that united myself and Roger, for instance. And I often wax lyrical about Scotland. I love the place.
It's a shame that Malc is so little-minded that he cannot see that London has some glorious parts in it, just as Edinburgh has Gorgie.
This pension change would be a very effective tax scam. Also, promoted by HMG. So perfectly legal.
The ultimate big time beneficiary. Guess who ? The sodding rich. The poor will be told , you will be liberated from the annuity rates [ will the alternative really be that high ? ] whereas the super rich really creams it, even if the lose money on the investment !!!
Being a local Sean, have you ever worked out why they misspell Edinburgh? Great pub though, especially in the summer.
Just the usual sarcasm, they look down on Edinburgh as being provincial , but in reality it is their old inferiority complex as they know their dump cannot compete with Edinburgh.
I love these posts from you @Malcolmmg - unfailingly brusque!
Malc's unfailing hatred of London and Lndoners gets a bit boring after a while.
His attitude is sad: so many people here on PB express a love of Edinburgh - it was the only thing that united myself and Roger, for instance. And I often wax lyrical about Scotland. I love the place.
It's a shame that Malc is so little-minded that he cannot see that London has some glorious parts in it, just as Edinburgh has Gorgie.
The Edinboro Castle is a poncy pub with poncy interior decor and full of poncy people. Somebody else may well say it's a stylish cool pub with stylish cool decor and stylish cool people. So it's horses for courses. But at somepoint - probably when somebody decided to change the name from the "Edinburgh Castle" to the "Edinboro Castle", it became poncy.
I'll have to add this onto my rather silly insult for SeanT: cream-tea poncy boy.
This pension change would be a very effective tax scam. Also, promoted by HMG. So perfectly legal.
The ultimate big time beneficiary. Guess who ? The sodding rich. The poor will be told , you will be liberated from the annuity rates [ will the alternative really be that high ? ] whereas the super rich really creams it, even if the lose money on the investment !!!
Surby, it is very difficult to argue with this. The system has always worked this way which is why I and other mugs have always got seriously tee'd off with the, shall we say, more adventurous tax avoidance industry. It is not as if the playing field was not already seriously sloped in the rich's favour.
The provisions in the budget yesterday requiring those relying on such schemes to pay the tax up front are a very positive step and hopefully a serious blow to this least productive of industries.
This pension change would be a very effective tax scam. Also, promoted by HMG. So perfectly legal.
The ultimate big time beneficiary. Guess who ? The sodding rich. The poor will be told , you will be liberated from the annuity rates [ will the alternative really be that high ? ] whereas the super rich really creams it, even if the lose money on the investment !!!
It isn't limitless free removal from your pension fund.
@Topping - "If Lab thinking on here is representative then the aspirational poor should fear a Lab govt (not only because Lab transparently either don't trust people with or would prefer them not to have their own money) but because for someone who is poor but hopes sometime not to be, the "look forward to" with Lab is to be penalised."
Any chance of some examples of this or are you just projecting what you want to be true?
We had this last night. There is a strong narrative that to be rich is somehow to warrant penal measures. As I said, "if Lab thinking on here is representative..." You only have to look at any of @RochdalePioneers or @BobaFett's posts where they talk about "the rich" plus not to mention the Pollys, Seaumus's, George's views of the world.
Show me a SINGLE post where I have done that? Oh, you can't.
Because I don't. According to many PB Conservatives I am rich!
Please don't cite me as a source without any evidence again.
Thanks.
Apologies you are right - I went over your recent posts and realise that you didn't talk about the rich. Or indeed anything else of consequence for that matter apart from a bit of meta-posting. I conflated you with @RochdalePioneers who puts up an eloquent case for the other side.
I therefore look forward to a substantive post of yours when I will be sure to cite you accurately.
Thanks for the reply – and apology accepted. More than happy to debate stuff I HAVE said with you @Topping
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
But you could avoid the 40/45% now and pay your your "lower" marginal rate later !
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
But you could avoid the 40/45% now and pay your your "lower" marginal rate later !
Great. It'll be a downpayment on all that tax brother Gordon thieved out of my pension in 1997.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
But you could avoid the 40/45% now and pay your your "lower" marginal rate later !
Yes, but that's part of the pensions bargain - the state encourages you to save money for your retirement by allowing you to save on tax by doing so.
It's an example of providing incentives to encourage people to engage in responsible behaviours, just as a high level of fuel duty encourages people to use petrol and diesel frugally.
Time for some director sharebuying to tell the market they've got it wrong.
GULP.
Keep your nerve just like Gordon Gekko
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Ed, for lack of a better word, is good. Ed is right, Ed works. Ed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Ed, in all of his forms; Ed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Ed, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
Being a local Sean, have you ever worked out why they misspell Edinburgh? Great pub though, especially in the summer.
Just the usual sarcasm, they look down on Edinburgh as being provincial , but in reality it is their old inferiority complex as they know their dump cannot compete with Edinburgh.
I love these posts from you @Malcolmmg - unfailingly brusque!
The Edinboro Castle is a poncy pub with poncy interior decor and full of poncy people. Somebody else may well say it's a stylish cool pub with stylish cool decor and stylish cool people. So it's horses for courses. But at somepoint - probably when somebody decided to change the name from the "Edinburgh Castle" to the "Edinboro Castle", it became poncy.
I'll have to add this onto my rather silly insult for SeanT: cream-tea poncy boy.
I have the strange feeling Malcolm G wrote that review. It is exactly his style.
Putting the pieces together - cantankerous hatred, chippiness, Scottishness and a taste for booze at 10 am, disguised as "a blog about visiting all the pubs in Camden" -
Aha! He is unmasked. Malc lives in the Alcholics' Hostel For Older Men, on Arlington Road, like so many of his countryfolk.
LOL, I could indeed have written such a piece. Many years since I have spent much time in London and I am sure most of the good boozers I drank in in the late 70's and early 80's will be well ruined by now.
The Edinboro debate (well, it's hardly a debate - I'm just standing in a corner muttering to myself).
I could swear that I've seen an old stagecoach board with Edinboro' written on it - possibly in a painting. I'd assumed it was a phonetic spelling for the barely literate travellers at the time.
However, the link below shows it was a spelling for 'Edinburgh', in use in at least 1837.
I wonder if the pub was originally, or is on the site of, an old stagecoach inn? Although surely Camden would be a bit close to the centre of London for a 'proper' stage, unless it was just a horse-changing point.
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
But you could avoid the 40/45% now and pay your your "lower" marginal rate later !
Great. It'll be a downpayment on all that tax brother Gordon thieved out of my pension in 1997.
Wouldn't you achieve the same thing with an annuity?
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
But you could avoid the 40/45% now and pay your your "lower" marginal rate later !
Great. It'll be a downpayment on all that tax brother Gordon thieved out of my pension in 1997.
Wouldn't you achieve the same thing with an annuity?
I suppose so but buying an annuity under 65 is fairly pointless at present given the rates. I'm sure I can get a much better yet prudent deal with the flexibility this would give.
Wouldn't you have to pay the marginal income tax rate upon withdrawal? Presumably the trick would be that, when you take it out, you are earning less so may be able to pay, say, the basic rate rather than the higher rate?
You would also have to factor in the risk of an incoming and impecunious Labour Govt. finding new ways to plunder your pension pot in the meantime. I hear Gordon Brown is looking for something to do...he has that on his CV.
The Edinboro debate (well, it's hardly a debate - I'm just standing in a corner muttering to myself).
I could swear that I've seen an old stagecoach board with Edinboro' written on it - possibly in a painting. I'd assumed it was a phonetic spelling for the barely literate travellers at the time.
However, the link below shows it was a spelling for 'Edinburgh', in use in at least 1837.
I wonder if the pub was originally, or is on the site of, an old stagecoach inn? Although surely Camden would be a bit close to the centre of London for a 'proper' stage, unless it was just a horse-changing point.
Wouldn't you have to pay the marginal income tax rate upon withdrawal? Presumably the trick would be that, when you take it out, you are earning less so may be able to pay, say, the basic rate rather than the higher rate?
You would also have to factor in the risk of an incoming and impecunious Labour Govt. finding new ways to plunder your pension pot in the meantime. I hear Gordon Brown is looking for something to do...he has that on his CV.
An extremely partisan response to a technical question Mark!
The Edinboro debate (well, it's hardly a debate - I'm just standing in a corner muttering to myself).
I could swear that I've seen an old stagecoach board with Edinboro' written on it - possibly in a painting. I'd assumed it was a phonetic spelling for the barely literate travellers at the time.
However, the link below shows it was a spelling for 'Edinburgh', in use in at least 1837.
I wonder if the pub was originally, or is on the site of, an old stagecoach inn? Although surely Camden would be a bit close to the centre of London for a 'proper' stage, unless it was just a horse-changing point.
Is this not simply a consequence of the English not being able to spell the word "burgh"? I think people are over thinking this.
I'm very possibly overthinking. But what I said above: "barely literate travellers" matches well with "the English not being able to spell the word "burgh""
Being a local Sean, have you ever worked out why they misspell Edinburgh? Great pub though, especially in the summer.
Just the usual sarcasm, they look down on Edinburgh as being provincial , but in reality it is their old inferiority complex as they know their dump cannot compete with Edinburgh.
I love these posts from you @Malcolmmg - unfailingly brusque!
Malc's unfailing hatred of London and Lndoners gets a bit boring after a while.
His attitude is sad: so many people here on PB express a love of Edinburgh - it was the only thing that united myself and Roger, for instance. And I often wax lyrical about Scotland. I love the place.
It's a shame that Malc is so little-minded that he cannot see that London has some glorious parts in it, just as Edinburgh has Gorgie.
It's a ploy - he's lovely really.
I have this hunch that most PBers are pleasant in real life, not the demons we portray each as on here
To give credit where it's due, abolishing the requirement to buy an annuity is an excellent move. I see this as being aimed less at pensioners and more like people like me (46 years old, saving into private pensions). I'm still a long way from retirement, but am sufficiently close to be interested in this.
As someone in their early 50s I am particularly interested in Balls' allegations that this can be used for tax avoidance by paying any excess income (have to work on that part) into a pension fund now and taking it out tax free in just a few years time.
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
It wouldn't be tax-free, though, would it? You would be charged your marginal rate of income tax on anything you withdraw that isn't part of the tax-free lump sum.
But you could avoid the 40/45% now and pay your your "lower" marginal rate later !
Great. It'll be a downpayment on all that tax brother Gordon thieved out of my pension in 1997.
Wouldn't you achieve the same thing with an annuity?
I suppose so but buying an annuity under 65 is fairly pointless at present given the rates. I'm sure I can get a much better yet prudent deal with the flexibility this would give.
My uneducated prediction is that there'll be some rowing back on the policy, and in the end it won't be unlimited withdrawal to spend on beer'n'bingo, but instead an expansion in the types of vehicle that can be used to create an income rather than just pure annuitisation. Probably an increase in the 25% tax-free withdrawal lump as well.
This is just too risky for the state as far as I can see. Presumably by now the Labour party (if they have any sense, which of course is an open question) will have tabled PQs asking for the forecasted decrease in pension funds that are annuitised on maturity, the estimate of the amount of those funds that are expended without creating the pensioners in question a secure income for life, and the net knock on effect on means-tested pensioner benefits and other public services whose usage is correlated to pensioner poverty. Fairly quickly the answers to that become "Osborne's unfunded pensioner welfare spending pledge".
Very few, Mr. Jessop, very few. There are lots of wonderful buildings and some splendid churches, but all round glorious parts? Nah. St. James's perhaps, Regents Park on on a summer's afternoon, bits of the City if you have your historical hat on, central Greenwich maybe but too touristy, Mayfair used to be (the place is nice but now too many of the people are ghastly, ditto Kensington and Chelsea). London is a dump, for all Mr. T's protestations about it being vibrant.
Can't comment too much about Edinburgh as I haven't been there for 20 years and most of my visits consisted of runs ashore, mostly along Rose Street - there was a pub there that sold pickled eggs and I remember ... well this is a family website.
The Edinboro debate (well, it's hardly a debate - I'm just standing in a corner muttering to myself).
I could swear that I've seen an old stagecoach board with Edinboro' written on it - possibly in a painting. I'd assumed it was a phonetic spelling for the barely literate travellers at the time.
However, the link below shows it was a spelling for 'Edinburgh', in use in at least 1837.
I wonder if the pub was originally, or is on the site of, an old stagecoach inn? Although surely Camden would be a bit close to the centre of London for a 'proper' stage, unless it was just a horse-changing point.
Is this not simply a consequence of the English not being able to spell the word "burgh"? I think people are over thinking this.
The Scots themselves could never spell Edinburgh consistently . In the 15th century , Scottish coins minted in the town had spellingd EDENBEOURGE , EDINBRUG , EDINRUGH , EDINBURGI etc .
DavidL the other day was saying that the Tory MEPs are bound to vote for the EPP candidate. The position actually seems to be that they won't have a joint recommendation, as they think it would be too Europhile to do such a thing:
You'd think they'd be more comfortable abstaining, wouldn't you? When the Mail do their thing about Juncker banning crumpets or whatever they don't want to be in the position of having voted for him.
Against that, it looks like it could be a squeaker. If they end up with the casting vote would they really want to throw the thing to the Socialists?
The Edinboro Castle is a poncy pub with poncy interior decor and full of poncy people. Somebody else may well say it's a stylish cool pub with stylish cool decor and stylish cool people. So it's horses for courses. But at somepoint - probably when somebody decided to change the name from the "Edinburgh Castle" to the "Edinboro Castle", it became poncy.
I'll have to add this onto my rather silly insult for SeanT: cream-tea poncy boy.
I have the strange feeling Malcolm G wrote that review. It is exactly his style.
Putting the pieces together - cantankerous hatred, chippiness, Scottishness and a taste for booze at 10 am, disguised as "a blog about visiting all the pubs in Camden" -
Aha! He is unmasked. Malc lives in the Alcholics' Hostel For Older Men, on Arlington Road, like so many of his countryfolk.
Not exactly reflecting the glorious event people have been talking about.
We had Ozzy "defending" it this morning on the Beeb - from a seemingly solitary attack from Paxo. I like the pensions stuff.
Ozzy should be congratulated on a decent shift. He probably wants to strangle Shapps for Pasty Part II - this stuff about bingo is trivial but very media friendly as it aligns so elegantly with Tory stereotypes
The Edinboro debate (well, it's hardly a debate - I'm just standing in a corner muttering to myself).
I could swear that I've seen an old stagecoach board with Edinboro' written on it - possibly in a painting. I'd assumed it was a phonetic spelling for the barely literate travellers at the time.
However, the link below shows it was a spelling for 'Edinburgh', in use in at least 1837.
I wonder if the pub was originally, or is on the site of, an old stagecoach inn? Although surely Camden would be a bit close to the centre of London for a 'proper' stage, unless it was just a horse-changing point.
Is this not simply a consequence of the English not being able to spell the word "burgh"? I think people are over thinking this.
I'm very possibly overthinking. But what I said above: "barely literate travellers" matches well with "the English not being able to spell the word "burgh""
;-)
Edinburgh was made a Royal Burgh in the reign of David 1 (no relation) 1124-1153, although the exact date is unclear. All Scottish burghs were called such with that spelling. I don't think there is a "borough" in Scotland although I may be wrong about that. We do have a lake or two.
If, as per the review, the name of the pub was changed in recent times the motivation ascribed is probably right.
Not exactly reflecting the glorious event people have been talking about.
We had Ozzy "defending" it this morning on the Beeb - from a seemingly solitary attack from Paxo. I like the pensions stuff.
Ozzy should be congratulated on a decent shift. He probably wants to strangle Shapps for Pasty Part II - this stuff about bingo is trivial but very media friendly as it aligns so elegantly with Tory stereotypes
I do think the fact that Shapps put in the word "they" makes the stereotyping even more distinctive.
Seriously, no one gives a feck about that stupid poster, whether Milliband's response was dire, or even, really, much about the Budget. The only news in town is flight MH370. Maybe both parties will be a little bit grateful for that?
The Edinboro Castle is a poncy pub with poncy interior decor and full of poncy people. Somebody else may well say it's a stylish cool pub with stylish cool decor and stylish cool people. So it's horses for courses. But at somepoint - probably when somebody decided to change the name from the "Edinburgh Castle" to the "Edinboro Castle", it became poncy.
I'll have to add this onto my rather silly insult for SeanT: cream-tea poncy boy.
I have the strange feeling Malcolm G wrote that review. It is exactly his style.
Putting the pieces together - cantankerous hatred, chippiness, Scottishness and a taste for booze at 10 am, disguised as "a blog about visiting all the pubs in Camden" -
Aha! He is unmasked. Malc lives in the Alcholics' Hostel For Older Men, on Arlington Road, like so many of his countryfolk.
I agree that the food in there is mediocre, but it's a few years since I have been in.
The food used to be total rubbish, but it is now rather nice. The service, however, remains oddly languid and sometimes downright annoying.
However the airy ambience, pleasant wines, good beer and the great big f*ck off garden, in the middle of London, outweigh the negatives. And it's 32 feet from my front door.
It used to be absolutely buzzing on Friday nights in summer. Pretty, chic London girls everywhere and a barbecue blazing. Just the sort of place @malcolmmg would surely love to transport back to Scotland.
Comments
As you know, I am not a Tory but I really find it hard to find fault with the savings and pensions stuff set out yesterday - maybe because it was actually developed by an LD!! But what I am less certain of is how it will resonate beyond the very positive headlines it is generating now, which may well turn into a nice Tory poll bounce. This is not something people will see in their wage packets next month or even next year. It is something to be planned for and so may pretty swiftly become a detail - especially if, as I expect, all parties accept this without much singing and dancing. We shall see.
It's not the states money to determine on. Just as a salary or other savings are not for the nanny state to regulate.
Chortle.
However, markets can continue to over-react for some time, so it's very hard to time an investment in this situation.
*Scottish Widows had a report about this a few months ago. The rate was higher than expected, with around 40% or so of women basically planning to rely on their husbands in retirement.
Huzzah for Scottish peers in action !!
I still see a role for annuities as part of a retirement portfolio albeit the increased state pension will perhaps reduce lifetime annuities but see a lot more fixed term annuities - all to be seen really.
The removal of the requirement to buy an annuity was actually in the Tory 2010 manifesto, although with Steve Webb's development it truly is a Coalition proposal.
I'd agree with you that I wouldn't expect it to have much affect on voting intention as it is removed from people's daily lives - on the other hand the IHT proposal by Osborne in 2007 also related to something that was far off for most people and that did have a significant effect.
Without an annunity, the pension is just a big pot of money, and if you can draw that money out (subject to tax), then it would be logical that pot can be passed on in full someway.
Chortle, I guess.
LOL
Still odd seeing Simon Hughes on the front bench.
SeanT is dead right that this is a theme the Tories and LIBERAL Democrats should be get their teeth into in a big way and hang in there like pitbulls. The coalition parties treat people like people - free agents. Labour simply don't. They need to be called out on it. Brutally. Publically. Relentlessly.
Clegg dismisses Conservatives' "silly" bingo and beer poster following #Budget2014 http://l-bc.co/cOfC7J #CallClegg
Still think this liberalisation is a very good thing even in the cold light of day. Yes there are issues surrounding tax avoidance and the possibility of making poor choices, as Ed Balls reasonably has raised, but the overall thrust is spot on.
It's our money, we've earned it and been prudent enough to save it. I do not like being told by the Nanny State I'm not allowed in the sweet shop as I might eat too much and get sick.
Labour's instinct on this seems to be:-
a) Not to trust people with the fruits of their own prudence and good sense.
b) Isn't all a bit suspicious and sordid that they've salted a few quid away?
The way we finance old age in this country has been butchered utterly over the years from all sides - though G Brown deserves a special mention in the rogue's gallery on this one, with his disincentives. This has opened up a proper debate on incentivising people (at last) to do the right thing during a working life, and trusting them with their own cash. There are pitfalls to Osborne's approach sure, but it's a great deal better than the rubbish we've had for years on this.
BTW whatever happened with that? All going well I trust?
This is where markets are a very good thing, as long as you do make sure you have the right advice. With more options available there will be solutions out there, but people will need advisors to help them to find the right ones. If I recall correctly, Osborne stated yesterday that everyone will be legally entitled to such advice - three meetings, was it?
Yes - interesting that - 'free' advice is what he wants to guarantee for everyone in a DC scheme coming up to retirement..... funnily enough I'm v interested to see who will provide this - is HMRC going to pay me?
Anyway broader issue is who might be on the hook if a client who is advised to not get some annuity income but draw it all down then runs out of money??? Might a complaint be made about the advice.... so what might the prudent adviser suggest ensuring to the client?
Not least with our regulator, PI insurers etc all so negative on drawdown because of the investment risks - or will that change too...
I think the pensions liberalisation is a fantastic idea by the Chancellor. Credit where it is due. Whether it turns into a long-term poll uplift I do not know but it's a non-partisan move that will help many.
On the other hand, I would be furious with Grant Shapps if I were a Tory supporter – the guy is clearly a liability. Someone needs to get a grip on him and fast, with the M. Green stuff and this bingo ad, I truly despair.
TheIndyPolitics @IndyPolitics
Michael Gove attacks David Cameron’s ‘ridiculous’ inner circle of Etonians http://ind.pn/1cHfCC2
Andrew Neil @afneil
Spectator Coffee House exclusive: Cameron delivers Gove a "right royal bollocking" witter.com/Spectator_CH/status/445656954535694337 …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26657455
If ever there was a statement of the bleeding obvious this has to be it:
Police said they were looking for "people acting suspiciously on Friday night, possibly covered in soil".
BTW whatever happened with that? All going well I trust?
Most of the problems with the filter have been fixed, and there hasn't been nearly the level of imposition as pessimistically forecast.
Time for some director sharebuying to tell the market they've got it wrong.
GULP.
Most?? That's quite some spin unless you've been living under a rock when the news broke.
I suggest you do a touch more research.
Anyway broader issue is who might be on the hook if a client who is advised to not get some annuity income but draw it all down then runs out of money??? Might a complaint be made about the advice.... so what might the prudent adviser suggest ensuring to the client?
Not least with our regulator, PI insurers etc all so negative on drawdown because of the investment risks - or will that change too...
My guess is that the obligation to provide the 3 meetings will be imposed on the pension provider. This will raise some interesting issues. Either they will be able to sell products during these meetings (in which case they would pay to be allowed to take part in them but their advice might be very far from impartial) or they will not in which case the management costs of the pension administration will increase. I suspect the former which will no doubt prove problematic at some point.
I was involved in a case for an IFA who dealt with very high value clients a few years ago. He just assumed that the main reason to use pensions was avoidance of IHT. The idea of having to buy an annuity at 75 (as it was at the time) was the only fly in the ointment in this plan but there were annuities which paid the unspent portion to the widow or whoever on death. No doubt these annuities would have offered even worse returns but since the purpose was tax avoidance it was thought to be worth it.
And pretty much like the "wrong sort of recovery" or that of economic ineptitude, it is all about the narrative. If a narrative develops around Lab that they penalise the rich and don't trust people with their own money then that will be a powerful element of the Cons campaign.
Because I don't. According to many PB Conservatives I am rich!
Please don't cite me as a source without any evidence again.
Thanks.
It also accords with my general political philosophy, of providing people with as much freedom to live their life as they choose, while standing together as a society to look after those who make mistakes with this freedom.
And someone who is prudent and careful with their money will have more left over to pass on to their children and other beneficiaries when they die, which is not the case with an annuity.
The main uncertainty I have is to what extent society will be willing to stand together to look after those who make mistakes with the new freedom. Given the way in which the tabloids put the boot in to those who are without work I fear that a less forgiving mood could develop towards those pensioners who spend their savings in a rapid and extravagant manner.
The only other quibble I would have is that the vast majority of people are never going to have enough in their pension pots for the new rules to make much difference to them. There are those in work who have no spare money to put away in pension savings, but inequality and low pay are not the sorts of topics Tory Chancellors like to talk about.
My word it seems only yesterday you were a thrusting young Conservative PBer of some repute, barely wet under the ears on this illustrious forum.
Tempus Fugit ....
The final and conclusive proof of Osborne's genius and good judgement. Well done George.
Retweeted by Sam Coates Times
Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak·16 mins
Watson says lab must oppose policies At 'all costs' - @edballsmp ?
Retweeted by Sam Coates Times
Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak·17 mins
Interesting @tom_watson says Lab shd oppose pension Changes - not the leadership position - his thoughts here - http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2014/03/why-labour-has-to-oppose-osbornes-tax-bribe-over-pensions …
Surely even our IFA industry couldn't lose 40% of it in that time and I would be ahead?
My only concern is that Balls is not a reliable source on, well, anything really.
I suggest you do a touch more research.
In terms of whether the filters do what they are supposed to do, yes. Obviously if you oppose them in principle then practical fixes won't solves those problems.
Recent opposition has resorted to trotting out lines about how it's "easily avoided" - which it is, with a bit of know-how - but in the real world the vast majority of Internet users couldn't tie their shoelaces when it comes to understanding how their web content is delivered to them. In terms of sites that shouldn't have been blocked, sure enough, they've been fixed. The step from beta to global roll-out was always going to put pressure on that element.
" But even so, the special deal between the state, the individual and the market will have been eroded.
Labour, with it’s collective values and belief in mutualism must oppose these proposals at all costs."
Labour need to take a breath and support these measures.
Doesn't work so well for someone who already has a large pension, because they'd expect to continue to have a fairly high base income after retirement age, so bulk pension withdrawals would be taxed at 40% - no real advantage there.
I'm sure someone has thought the details through more than I have, but there are definitely some nice opportunities.
I therefore look forward to a substantive post of yours when I will be sure to cite you accurately.
I need to do more research.
Can I just say while replying I was greatly moved and impressed by your posts yesterday. I have had close dealings with such problems with members of my immediate family and it is terrible.
http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/life/index.php?fid=206
His attitude is sad: so many people here on PB express a love of Edinburgh - it was the only thing that united myself and Roger, for instance. And I often wax lyrical about Scotland. I love the place.
It's a shame that Malc is so little-minded that he cannot see that London has some glorious parts in it, just as Edinburgh has Gorgie.
The ultimate big time beneficiary. Guess who ? The sodding rich. The poor will be told , you will be liberated from the annuity rates [ will the alternative really be that high ? ] whereas the super rich really creams it, even if the lose money on the investment !!!
http://camdenpubs.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/edinboro-castle.html
The provisions in the budget yesterday requiring those relying on such schemes to pay the tax up front are a very positive step and hopefully a serious blow to this least productive of industries.
It's an example of providing incentives to encourage people to engage in responsible behaviours, just as a high level of fuel duty encourages people to use petrol and diesel frugally.
Putting the pieces together - cantankerous hatred, chippiness, Scottishness and a taste for booze at 10 am, disguised as "a blog about visiting all the pubs in Camden" -
Aha! He is unmasked. Malc lives in the Alcholics' Hostel For Older Men, on Arlington Road, like so many of his countryfolk.
http://www.shp.org.uk/arlingtonroad
LOL, I could indeed have written such a piece. Many years since I have spent much time in London and I am sure most of the good boozers I drank in in the late 70's and early 80's will be well ruined by now.
I could swear that I've seen an old stagecoach board with Edinboro' written on it - possibly in a painting. I'd assumed it was a phonetic spelling for the barely literate travellers at the time.
However, the link below shows it was a spelling for 'Edinburgh', in use in at least 1837.
I wonder if the pub was originally, or is on the site of, an old stagecoach inn? Although surely Camden would be a bit close to the centre of London for a 'proper' stage, unless it was just a horse-changing point.
But probably not.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DiL0qBun-x4C&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=edinboro+stage+coach&source=bl&ots=5mbGtyNK8u&sig=nK71UZScfiWVAhp1jgFGsCQYVGs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4dYqU4a6K-LW0QW_m4CABw&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=edinboro stage coach&f=false
Top headline: Osborne defends budget
https://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/41023/
Second headline: Tory Beer and Bingo ad. slammed
https://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/41021/
Not exactly reflecting the glorious event people have been talking about.
I took this picture at Ebbsfleet a few years ago:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Unit_395008_at_Ebbsfleet_International.JPG
;-)
Perhaps people will see labour's childish delight at this for what it is.
Childish
This is just too risky for the state as far as I can see. Presumably by now the Labour party (if they have any sense, which of course is an open question) will have tabled PQs asking for the forecasted decrease in pension funds that are annuitised on maturity, the estimate of the amount of those funds that are expended without creating the pensioners in question a secure income for life, and the net knock on effect on means-tested pensioner benefits and other public services whose usage is correlated to pensioner poverty. Fairly quickly the answers to that become "Osborne's unfunded pensioner welfare spending pledge".
Very few, Mr. Jessop, very few. There are lots of wonderful buildings and some splendid churches, but all round glorious parts? Nah. St. James's perhaps, Regents Park on on a summer's afternoon, bits of the City if you have your historical hat on, central Greenwich maybe but too touristy, Mayfair used to be (the place is nice but now too many of the people are ghastly, ditto Kensington and Chelsea). London is a dump, for all Mr. T's protestations about it being vibrant.
Can't comment too much about Edinburgh as I haven't been there for 20 years and most of my visits consisted of runs ashore, mostly along Rose Street - there was a pub there that sold pickled eggs and I remember ... well this is a family website.
Against that, it looks like it could be a squeaker. If they end up with the casting vote would they really want to throw the thing to the Socialists?
Putting the pieces together - cantankerous hatred, chippiness, Scottishness and a taste for booze at 10 am, disguised as "a blog about visiting all the pubs in Camden" -
Aha! He is unmasked. Malc lives in the Alcholics' Hostel For Older Men, on Arlington Road, like so many of his countryfolk.
http://www.shp.org.uk/arlingtonroad
I agree that the food in there is mediocre, but it's a few years since I have been in.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584700/Let-play-bingo-Tories-fire-condescending-advert-highlighting-Budget-beer-bingo-tax-cuts-things-enjoy.html
Maybe it is something to do with Burgers. Maybe the murky influence of the Clan McDonalds.
And why is it the Big Mac and not the Big Mc?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-19/music-just-ended-wealthy-chinese-are-liquidating-offshore-luxury-homes-scramble-cash
Ozzy should be congratulated on a decent shift. He probably wants to strangle Shapps for Pasty Part II - this stuff about bingo is trivial but very media friendly as it aligns so elegantly with Tory stereotypes
If, as per the review, the name of the pub was changed in recent times the motivation ascribed is probably right.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100012871/did-you-spot-this-budget-gives-hmrc-power-to-raid-your-bank-account-like-wonga/
However the airy ambience, pleasant wines, good beer and the great big f*ck off garden, in the middle of London, outweigh the negatives. And it's 32 feet from my front door.
It used to be absolutely buzzing on Friday nights in summer. Pretty, chic London girls everywhere and a barbecue blazing. Just the sort of place @malcolmmg would surely love to transport back to Scotland.